Why are climate alarmists opposed to free speech and honest debate?

The question is manipulative and already....has its own answers.

Deconstructing you question is in order:

Who/what is a "Climate Alarmists?" You frame it that way which shows bias.

You claim "whoever you are talking about" are opposed to free speech---however you define "free speech" and "honest debate" What are you talking about?

Your question is just an appeal for confirmation bias of whatever you believe, or wish to push by others. Gaslighting.

Jim2 here. Since you are opposed to free speech and honest debate, I had to use one of my other two accounts, and post anonymously, so that you could not block this account. Sorry, but I can't tolerate lies, so I am answering your question.

The so-called """"""alarmists""""" are not the ones opposed to that. The deniers, who seldom post anything remotely resembling science, are the ones opposed to free speech and honest debate.

It seems the majority of AGW deniers (at least on here) are the ones that post anonymously and block all those that disagree with them. They seem to be opposed to free speech and honest debate.

LOL at the long-winded anon answer.  It's Dirac.  And now he's posing as a "skeptic."  I guess this guy will go down lying to the very end.  Incredible.  

For the same reason all censors are.  They can't debate and/or are intolerant.

This "question" is difficult to answer as posed, it uses polarizing language, which PROVES you are not interested in an honest debate, and the fact that you block people, PROVES that you are opposed to free speech.  So you are accusing (fictional) others of the things you do.

But lets ignore that for now and give you a chance to redeem yourself.

I consider myself a skeptic and I accept that global warming is a serious issue And I believe in collective responsibility to protect the commons, which means government intervention.

I don't think that any one on YA who accepts global warming as a fact can be considered an alarmist, and considering this place is overrun by conspiracy nutters, none of them would be here if they opposed free speech especially considering this place is overrun by conspiracy nutters.   I cam here as a way to improve my English and I think conspiracy theorists are funny, I really do NOT want them to shut up.   As George Carlin put it, "When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat." And now any one in the world with an internet connection has access to that front row seat, even when YA closes.

In order to have an honest debate, you first have to establish a common starting ground.  For example

1) Do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

2) Do you accept that burning fossil fuels creates CO2 as one of the waste products and that it is disposed into the atmosphere?

3) Do you accept that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

4) Do you accept that the earth has warmed?

5) Do you accept that AGW is a fact?

Etc.

You start of basic and keep adding questions to find a point where you disagree.  In my view a "fair" disagreement would be if we should take action now, or allow the earth to warm and let subsequent generations deal with the consequences of that warming later.

Arguments like, "I like it warm"  or "Government has no role in regulating private business" are nonsense as you could easily migrate to a warmer place and government already enforces contracts through the judicial system.

Do you want to rant and call people names or do you want to debate?  If you want to debate you could start by answering those 5 questions and maybe your reasoning.

We want to debate climate not ice cream

yahoo answers only likes its version of free speech as do alot of the tossers that post here.

The GW board turned into a shitshow long ago, with maybe a half-dozen users with countless socks hurling insults and thumbs-down at each other.

Those of us who just wanted to hear multiple opinions and see links to sources of data for those opinions left you fools alone years ago.

They've given up trying to convince people.  Their argument is dead.  The world is moving on, so banning, blocking, point gaming, question swamping and personal attacks is all they have left